Political Science: A Reply to the 375 Concerned Members of the National Academy of Sciences

Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.

True, we influence climate, by returning to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by taking carbon dioxide; storing the carbon in leaves, stems, and trunks; and returning the oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying nearly all the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by emitting hot rocks that warm the air and ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun and cause cooling. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature within a few degrees either side of the period mean for more than 800,000 years.

The activists say we are warming the lower atmosphere. Yet on all datasets, the atmosphere is warming at less than half the rate originally predicted by their fellow-activists at the error-prone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — who have a vested interest in overstating the supposed extent of our influence on climate. For, otherwise, the Panel would be – as it should now be – abolished. The Panel is political, but science is not science unless it is scientific, and unless it is free, in particular, from the political totalitarianism that sullenly insists that only one opinion – the Party Line – may be uttered.

The activists say our influence on climate is evident in “altered rainfall patterns,” but in this they are at odds with their fellow-activists at the ill-fated Intergovernmental Panel, whose special report on extreme weather (2012) and whose fifth and most recent (2013) Assessment Report on the climate question find little or no evidence of a link between our industries and enterprises on the one hand and global rainfall patterns on the other.

True scientists, like any other citizens, are entitled and even encouraged to take part in the political process, and to state their opinions. This applies to non-USA-citizens, which many of the 375 are. What true scientists must not do, however, is pretend, as the activists did, that their totalitarian point of view is unchallengeable. In all material respects, unfolding events have proven their extremist viewpoint prodigiously exaggerated at best, plain wrong at worst.

Specifically, the activists complain that, during the presidential primary campaign, “claims were made that the Earth is not warming.” Yet early in the primary campaign it was correct to say the Earth had not been warming for almost 19 years. More recently there has been a naturally-occurring El Niño event, which has raised the trend a little, but it remains true that the early predictions of medium-term warming were badly exaggerated.

The activists say, “We know that the climate system has tipping points.” Yet, revealingly, “Tipping point” is not a scientific but a political term. The activists say that “rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return,” but there is no evidence for rapid warming of the planet today. At the end of the Maunder Minimum, the Earth’s atmosphere warmed more rapidly in response to the naturally-occurring recovery of solar activity from 1695-1735 than it has warmed in any subsequent 40-year period. There is nothing unprecedented either about today’s global temperatures or about the rate at which those temperatures have been changing.

The activists are also wrong in their assertion that any appreciable human influence on the climate will be detectable for many thousands of years. Their fellow activists on the Panel say that very nearly all of the feedbacks from the small warming that may be caused by our enriching the atmosphere with plant food act over timescales of hours to – at most – decades.

It would, therefore, be entirely proper for a presidential candidate to argue that the United States should withdraw from the Paris climate treaty, except for one inconvenient truth. The United States has not ratified the treaty. Any such ratification requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and the collapse of the totalitarians’ scientific case for “climate action” now renders any such two-thirds majority impossible to achieve.

Though the activists have attempted – falsely and improperly – to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party’s candidate in the forthcoming presidential election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab-coats by collectively suggesting that “Science” demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.

Related

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (2)

Emanuelle Goldstein

My older brother is one of the 375 signatories. Monckton is absolutely correct to characterize these folks as totalitarians and many are Marxist totalitarians. This particular brother was considered to be a genius–at least smarter than all of the family of “deplorables”. He was a genius after all, so we should believe whatever he says. The great and powerful Oz has spoken. One of the few gifts I remember getting from him was when I was 10. It was a comic book… a comic book bio of Karl Marx and the history of Marxism. In the late 70s, I tried to discuss Luis and Walter Alvarez’s theory that the impact of an extraterrestial object led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. My brother laughed and said Alvarez was a kook who should be co-authoring papers with Erich von Daniken. My family told me to be quiet and let it go: “Your brother is a scientist. He knows more than you do.” Well, Chicxulub proved my brother to be an ass beyond von Daniken’s league. The only stipulation I make to my brother’s prescience and genius is that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Waiting for the day that he becomes the Erich von Daniken Professor of Scientific Oppression of the Proletariat.

JayPee

It matters not what form of totalitarianism is being talked of.
Totalitarianism is wrong because it places the artificial construct of government as being superior to and legitimately the dictator of the people who either actively or acquiesced in its creation.
To think that the artificial creation is somehow superior to its creators, its masters is

Amirlach

JayPee

I’m willing to consider your argument, but I’m disturbed of your willing to give credence to the unproven and unfoundedly assumed presumption that CO2, CH4, and any other gasses that the extremist left hates are upon their dictum alone the mythical GREENHOUSE GASSES as they define them to be.

I ask you not to buy into their argument without the proof that they have never had.
They have always had conjecture, lies and hysteria and even a low percentage of consensus ( as if that means anything ).
But they have NEVER had proof of their mythical GREENHOUSE EFFECT ( as defined by the extremist left ).

John West

A lot of what Mr. Bright-Paul is saying is true but often not in the way he thinks. The GHE for example does indeed not heat the Earth, technically it slows the cooling. It is hardly absurd and predisposes no such thing as a rigid structure in the sky.

Energy from the Sun warms the surface which in turn warms the atmosphere primarily through convection as is said, however, the surface also loses energy (cools) via radiant heat loss in the form of IR. Some of this IR is absorbed by GHG’s that excites various vibration nodes of GHG molecules which does not directly increase the temperature of the gas because the temperature of a gas is a measure of kinetic energy only, not vibrational energy. This vibrational energy may be emitted as IR or it may be transmitted through collisions to other molecules in the air possibly increasing temperature. The direction of IR emitted from such a molecule is essential random, therefore, some of that IR will invariably be directed toward the Earth. That “downwelling” IR reduces the net radiant transfer of energy from the Earth. For illustration purposes, let’ say the ground is at a temperature that radiates at 600 W/m^2 but the downwelling radiation is 300 W/m^2, therefore the net radiant energy loss of the ground would be 300 W/m^2 instead of 600 W/m^2 therefore slowing the cooling of the ground even though the ground still transfers more heat to the atmosphere through conduction the radiant heat loss is not insignificant.

Also, it is correct that one cannot technically trap heat being heat is a transfer of energy, but one can indeed trap energy. Plants convert sunlight into sugar thereby “trapping” it; storing sunlight as chemical energy. GHG’s absorb IR (light) into vibrational energy thereby “trapping” the energy; storing IR in vibrational energy. So, even though Mr. Bright-Paul is technically correct it hardly undermines the GHE phenomena being real, substantially evidenced, measurable, and much more than just opinion.

An evidenced based and scientifically sound “skeptical” position:
1) That global warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 is a relatively small effect that represents little if any real threat to civilization, global ecology, or me personally.

2) That mitigation of global warming through mandated global emission limitations is untenable.

3) That the “issue” is being presented and examined from the wrong perspective; the problem is world hunger, the solution is increasing atmospheric CO2, the side effect is global warming, deal with the side effects at the local and regional level not by taking away the “cure” for world hunger.

4) I support “no regrets” efforts to mitigate effects of and adapt to climate change at the local and regional level as well as funding research efforts focused on realistic next generation power generation.

Why?
1.1) Doubling atmospheric CO2 increases the average GHE (greenhouse effect) by approximately 3.7 W/m^2. The average GHE is about 333 W/m^2 and varies from less than 100 to over 400 W/m^2. This small increase (~1%) is only capable of producing a very small warming effect (~1°C @ a stretch).
1.2) There’s no credible evidence that feedbacks will amplify CO2 induced warming, in fact real evidence (such as the climate’s reaction to Mt. Pinatubo eruption, daily, seasonal, NH vs. SH temperature response to changes in heat input, paleoclimate sensitivity, etc.) suggests the opposite, a dampening effect.
1.3) The ocean is a massive dynamic heat sink capable of absorbing huge quantities of energy with little (as in barely measurable) change to its characteristics.
1.4) There are various negative feedbacks limiting warming such as cloud formation that tends to cool the surface when temperature thresholds are reached under particular conditions. The temperature record compared to the climate model projections indicate these negative feedbacks amply negate the effect of EGHE.

2.1) Considering the nature of the effects of GW are not globally homogenous due to polar amplification, geological differences, whether patterns, climate, etc.; even if all the worst case scenario’s in the scientific alarm-o-sphere were absolutely true there would still be (as with any change) winners and losers. Siberia and Canada, for example, with their cold climates and steep coasts may be better off in a warmer world. How are the losers going to convince the winners to not emit CO2 into the atmosphere when it benefits them to do so?
2.2) From an ecology perspective the same is true: the alarmists claim polar bears are in trouble and tropical diseases are on the rise; so tropical diseases win. From a purely objective scientific view they shouldn’t be making the moral judgement that polar bears are good and tropical diseases are bad. That’s just an extreme example of course, I’m sure seals wouldn’t mind a few less polar bears around but we never hear about them benefiting from less polar bears due to global warming; especially since polar bears are well equipped to survive warm periods or they wouldn’t have made it through the last interglacial that was significantly warmer than now. So what happens if the seal proponents that don’t particular care for the seal’s main predator figure out that seals are better off in a warmer world, they still promote and sacrifice for keeping the planet at this arbitrarily chosen 2 degrees above pre-industrial?
2.3) Game Theory, Prisoner’s Dilemma. The benefit to a country for gaming the system would be too tempting for some to ignore. Just like VW, some will invariably cheat thereby undermining the effort of the “honest players”. The various trading schemes around the world are already replete with scams and cheats; do you really think individuals, corporations, and countries are going to magically become universally altruistic and everyone will cooperate and sing kumbaya for the next few centuries?
2.4) “The stone age didn’t end for lack of stones.” Similarly, the fossil fuel age will not end due to running out of fossil fuels. Eventually something cheaper and more convenient will be developed and replace fossil fuels whether this be thorium reactors, fusion, gravimetric generators (eh, eh), or something we haven’t even thought of yet is anybody’s guess at this point, but as sure as agriculture replaced hunting and gathering something will replace fossil fuels.
2.5) “Forbidden fruit.” The surest way to make sure people will want something bad enough to break the law to get it is to forbid it.
2.6) “Burning a hole in my pocket.” All that wealth just under the surface and we’re just going to “leave it in the ground”; yea, right.

3.1) Since I was a wee lad the numero uno problem in the world was hunger. Anecdotally, it was a somewhat jokingly unspoken obligatory requirement for every Miss USA/Universe contestant to work in solving world hunger into at least one response during the Q&A period. Until the GW scaremongering took over everyone knew the problem that humanity should solve was world hunger.
3.2) Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases primary production in many parts of the world. We’ve seen world hunger decrease as atmospheric CO2 increase as yields around the world increase in lock step with CO2 fertilization.
3.3) While some places on earth will be harder hit than others by global warming, on average the likely impact will be some inconvenience. Surely, we can take some inconvenience in order to feed the world and support those areas that have to deal with more than an inconvenience to aid them in effects mitigation and adaptation locally and regionally.

4.1) Climate changes. Seas rise and fall. Storms happen. These are facts of life in an enhanced GHE warming world, a fossil fuel aerosol induced cooling world, or pretty much any future world us and our decedents will live in.
4.2) For any particular place on earth the risks due to weather events or other climate impacts are pretty well known and understood (you don’t get hurricanes in Siberia for example). These risks can be mitigated through responsible planning and resource allocation.
4.3) Too often already global warming has been used as an excuse for politicians to avoid taking responsibility for their own incompetence and inaction.

Aido

It gets even more dodgy. The ‘anomalies’ are differences from a 30-year average, referred to as the ‘norm’.. 1930-1960, then 1960-1990, which is the current ‘norm’. If you took 1940-1970, or 1950-1980 as the ‘norm’, you’d get different figures. How anyone falls for this beats me.

Amber

Ricky C
About 60 million voters would likely agree with you . Some people like to rescue pit bulls to because they figure they can “fix ‘ them .
Donald Trump doesn’t need one of his top enemies buttering up his daughter
to help sell a scary global warming scam .
Gore , Podesta , and Steyer are the best of pals and would love nothing more than to have a direct pipeline into Trump to help bring him down . Stating the obvious ,
they mean him absolutely no good and will do every thing they can to wreck his Presidency one way or the other .
Lets hope Ivanka dedicates her influence and smarts to help real people and solve real problems .
Stein got 1 % of the vote for a reason . The global warming con game is over .